SCOTUS: High court OKs personal property seizures (NSR)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bklyntrayc

Here in Brooklyn, this has been a really big deal, where they plan to raze 24 acres for the Nets stadium. (note a stadium requires only 10% of that space) I don't know how you could say an area is blighted when condos are going for over $1M, but when you've got friends in Albany....

http://www.developdontdestroy.org/whatswrong.php

---

Interesting link. Didn't know Prospect Heights was such a slum :rolleyes:
You are sooo screwed.
The only thing that can save you is political pressure.
Sadly, the courts will no longer protect you from the wealthy connected land grabbers.

Both this Brooklyn deal and the New London deal are exactly the opposite of the urban renewal condemnations that came out of the '70s. these deals are to whitey-fy and ritchie-rich decent neighborhoods that are too ethnic and hoi polloi for the champagne and caviar power barrons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

but isn't this decision kind of a reinforcement of what is already law?

---

Eminent Domain is the siezure of private property for public use, in a nutshell. In my opinion, it can be a good thing. The town I work for is in the process of condemning some property (currently a parking lot) to build a public transportation hub. Definitely a public use. Governments do it all the time to build roads and other infrastructure. Again, PUBLIC use.

Now seizing land to sell to land developers? Selling overpriced condos to rich people is hardly a public use. Will it inject more money into the economy, yes. Basically, the government and large developers are the only ones with enough money to purchase mulitple tracts of land. Any way you look at it, the taxpayer gets screwed in this situation, the developer gets richer, and large 'corporatization' wins again over the individual.

On the other hand, one could argue that this would help prevent sprawl, since developers are going to build anywhere they can. They'll just as gladly snatch up open space parcels on the outskirts of town, but maybe this will help confine them to redevelopment.

I got no problem with it, if it'll work. But I don't think that the existence of a "carefully considered plan", which the Court finds so important in this decision, is that meaningful in a situation where the outcome is so uncertain. It's one thing to take property by eminent domain to put up a highway, because you can be pretty sure that the highway will succeed in getting people from point A to point B faster than whatever roads are there now (but see: Boston Central Artery). But here, even if there is a plan, there is no guarantee that the envisioned economic benefits will happen and whether they will really spread to the greater community.

That being said, shouldn't conservatives be happy? Non-activist judiciary! Respect for state and local government decisions and prerogatives! Never mind that the court ignores some possible preemption issues; still an interesting mix of federalist/republican issues on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

That being said, shouldn't conservatives be happy? Non-activist judiciary! Respect for state and local government decisions and prerogatives!

---

Yeah, respect for local government's rights is important to conservatives, but look at this:

Respect for Private Property rights
Respect for Constraint of Government Power
Respect for Individual's rights (as opposed to group's rights)

I think folks are confusing Federalism with Original Intent.

The conservative Justices are following Original Intent, limiting the constitution to that which seems most likely to have been intended by the Framers. to do otherwise leaves the constitution open to being interpreted differently by succeeding generations as they see fit.

Despite the fact that this gives more power to local govt, it is not "Federalism" in the true sense, since this was not a case of Federal powers trying to usurp State or local powers. Federalism was, however, something the Frames originally intended that has been horrilbly corrupted by expanding S.Ct. interpretations over the years, resulting in bloated, corrupt and unaccountable congress and senate.

The Majority are still being "activist" judges, since they are straying from the original intent of the Framers. King George siezing your land to give to the Duke of York or the Earl of Sandwich so they can build a marina, office park and shopping mall would hardly be what Jefferson, Washington, et al. intended to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

to do otherwise leaves the constitution open to being interpreted differently by succeeding generations as they see fit.

---

Well, given that I'm not too concerned about being forced to quarter troops in my house, but do believe that segregation is bad, I think that's okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

Well, given that I'm not too concerned about being forced to quarter troops in my house, but do believe that segregation is bad, I think that's okay.

---

You may feel differently if your pal GWB stacks the court with raging judicial activist conservatives ;)

Say what you will about the conservative S.Ct, you are lucky they are mainly interested in judicial restraint.

Yes, Brown v. Board of Ed. and other decisions hastened the Civil Rights movement, but even if they were not decided that way (which I dont think clearly follows from being for original intent), the legislature would have enacted the laws ending segregation and discrimination eventually.
Who the fuck do you think passed the Voting Rights Act? or the many Civil Rights Acts?? the judiciary? nope. try again. that was the legislature.

I think Jim Crow laws could be struck down even while adhering to original intent. Remember that the first step of original intent is the plain language of the four corners of the document(s).

Think on this twist. You own a house with an acre of land. Land is zoned for higher density - say 8 houses per acre. Developer can now force you to sell the land at a huge discount (eminent domain siezure prices are lower than going market price) because the local government will collect higher property taxes from 8 houses than your 1.
Since when is possible increased tax revenue a "public benifit" ?

Parade of horribles! Where's the faith in your elected local officials?

Not very often a thread shows up that is directly related to my line of work. The power of eminant domain is necessary to protect and further the public good. Using it to condemn residential property to convert it to another use simply to increase tax revenue is stepping overt he line. The UT legislature last session basically killed all redevelopment projects for at least two years due to rampant abuse of this power (mainly the city of Ogden condmening land for Wal Mart)By redevelopment, I mean using hte power of condemnation to increase the city coffers. This case is critical for local governmetns to be able to function, but there are many other tools available to local governmentsto increase the tax base.

TomK:
Properties that are zoned for higher density residential uses are worth much more than lower density zoned properties. In cases like the one yu mentioned, developers usually by the land before they rezone it, sothey can get it cheaper. Since the failed Urban Renewal efforts of the 60's and early 70's, there are few cases where a city condemend properties zoned for single family residential in order to get a higher density residential use.

And believe it or not, not every city is in thepockets of the developers. There are more cases about developers suing cities because they have not approved a project then the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cololi

And believe it or not, not every city is in thepockets of the developers. There are more cases about developers suing cities because they have not approved a project then the other way around.

---

That is true, and a perfect example of exactly the opposite happening. A local government can deny a project for any reason they see fit - which, if they abuse this power, is really bad for the propery rights of the landholder who wants to develop.

That, of course, is not as bad as this eminant domain issue - If I had to pick the lesse of two evils, I'd definitely pick the former.

/libertarian.

This is a terrible decision. I almost never side with the members of the Court who dissented on this decision. In this case, the dissenters were excruciatingly correct. Eminent domain should not apply in cases of private commercial development.

State and local governments could choose to pass laws that protect small property owners. Unfortunately, they probably won't because developers can and will spend large sums of money to lobby politicians. Money, not doing the right thing, turns the heads of politicians.

Right now a developer is clearing and grading the land behind my property, preparing it for a sea of cookie cutter houses. People in my area fought this development for twenty years. In the end, despite evidence proving that the development violated Washington State's Growth Management Act, the developers won anyway. :mad:

Okay, so it's clear that the Government can take your property provided that it justly compensates you and that the property taken is for a public use.

What the town of New London was arguing was that taking the property and selling it to someone else would result in an increased the tax base benefiting the public and that that constitutes a bona fide public use.

So, do increased tax receipts constitute a public benefit? Me dunno. If they could demonstrate convincingly that those receipts will be used for the public benefit, wouldn't it then would meet the burden of public use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva

. So, do increased tax receipts constitute a public benefit? Me dunno. If they could demonstrate convincingly that those receipts will be used for the public benefit, wouldn't it then would meet the burden of public use?

---

I thought about that, too. Yet, the commercial gain aspect troubles me with this decision. A potential for an increase in tax revenue doesn't seem to pass the sniff test for allowing the government to take someone's property, even with compensation.

Retailers like Wal-Mart and Target should like this decision. They're already scouting for property in urban areas.

Land Grab

Open the floodgates:
------------------------------
Cities Use Eminent Domain To Clear Lots for Big-Box Stores
Small business owners often the victims of corporate power

First published by the Wall St. Journal, Dec. 8, 2004

Big-box retailers have a message for local landowners: Move.

And the command has the force of law, much to the dismay of Darrell M. Trent, a part-time developer in Pittsburg, Kan. Mr. Trent thought he scored a coup this year when he leased part of a seven-acre parcel his family had owned since the 1960s to a local plumbing supplier.

But the city took the property this spring through its powers of eminent domain and handed it to a developer with a different tenant: Home Depot Inc.

Says Mr. Trent: "After having carried it all this time, for them to step in and take it away from me -- it really denies me my corporate livelihood," Mr. Trent says.

Desperate for tax revenue, cities and towns across the country now routinely take property from unwilling sellers to make way for big-box retailers. Condemnation cases aren't tracked nationally, but even retailers themselves acknowledge that the explosive growth of the format in the 1990s and torrid competition for land has increasingly pushed them into increasingly problematic areas -- including sites owned by other people.

The village of Port Chester, N.Y., is clearing an entire business district -- including a marina, a housewares importer, an antiques store and several other businesses -- to make way for Costco Wholesale Corp., Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and others. Costco took over another site after the city of Cypress, Calif., condemned a vacant lot as a "public nuisance" to stop a Christian group from building a religious center there. After a public uproar, the city found another site for the church, which says it is satisfied with the ultimate outcome.

The township of North Bergen, N.J., moved to condemn a store in a shopping center occupied by Kmart Holding Corp. in favor of a developer who plans another Home Depot. When the city of Maplewood, Mo., invited retailers to compete for a chunk of choice land, developers for Costco and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. fought a nasty legal and political battle. Wal-Mart's developer won -- and 150 homes and businesses were condemned.

Next spring, Costco will face its second shareholder resolution in two years asking the company to "adopt a policy for land procurement and use that incorporates social and environmental factors," particularly, the wishes of local property owners and community groups. The resolution was brought by Christian Brothers Investment Services Inc., New York, which says its concerns include "reputational risk" from eminent-domain use. "If the company continues to operate in this manner, with the amount of publicity and protests, this could end up impacting shareholder value," says Julie Tanner, a Christian Brothers spokeswoman.

Property-rights advocates say the use of condemnation for big boxes is an abuse of government power that subsidizes big retailers at original landowners' expense. "They're the new generation of robber barons, like the railroads of the 19th century" says Gideon Kanner, a professor emeritus at Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles. "They look upon this as the new way of doing business."

The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions allow the government to take private property, with compensation, for a "public use." But courts over the years have allowed cities and towns to stretch the definition to include economic-development projects, on the principle that one private owner can better create jobs and increase tax revenue than another.

Retailers say they're doing nothing wrong. Costco, based in Issaquah, Wash., is the most outspoken of the big retailers in defense of the practice. In a candid letter to a concerned shareholder two years ago, the company's senior vice president for legal and administrative affairs, Joel Benoliel, acknowledged that "probably dozens" of its projects involved eminent domain "or the threat of it." He wrote that if Costco didn't do the deals, "our competitors for those sites, like Target, Home Depot, Kmart, Wal-Mart, BJ's, Sam's Club and many others, would ... and our shareholders would be the losers."

Mr. Benoliel says the practice doesn't violate laws or any rules of the free-market economy and rejects as "simplistic" libertarian arguments that condemnations should be confined, as some property-rights advocates argue, to roads, bridges and purely public uses. He says communities, balancing their fiscal needs against the rights of a few, often clamor for a Costco store. "We are viewed as a solution to a problem," he says.

Whether condemnees get full value for their property is a matter of bitter debate. Property owners invariably complain they are strong-armed into accepting low-ball offers. In New York's Port Chester, a working-class city on Long Island Sound, developer Bart Didden says that village redevelopment officials this year offered him $250,000 for a lot that a separate local taxing authority assessed last year at $560,000. He is challenging the village's condemnation in federal court in White Plains, N.Y.

John Watkins, a special counsel for the village, says all offers were based on "highest approved appraisals," as required by state law. He says he understands Mr. Didden's reaction, but adds that tax assessments and appraisals serve different functions -- "apples and oranges," as he puts it.


Lately, cities' power to condemn property has come under increased legal scrutiny. In August, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a landmark 1981 ruling, widely cited by other states, that effectively barred condemnations for purely economic purposes in that state.

Then, in September, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a suit brought on behalf of New London, Conn., property owners challenging the city's plan to clear nonblighted homes and businesses to make way for an office-and-research park. The case, brought by Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C., property-rights law firm, is the first the high court has heard on economic-development condemnations since the 1950s.

Last year, a federal judge sharply criticized Target Corp. for its role in a condemnation of a St. Louis site. The case began after Target, which was already renting a store on the site, asked its landlord for permission to knock down the store and build a larger one. When the landlord asked for higher rent, Target never called back and turned to a local alderman, who started condemnation proceedings, according to an opinion by Judge Charles A. Shaw in U.S. District Court, St. Louis.

Judge Shaw also found that Target "falsely" threatened the city that it would abandon the store if the condemnation didn't take place. He also found that the Minneapolis retailer and the city commissioned a "blighting study" that found the store's electrical and heating systems had indeed deteriorated -- but failed to note that Target itself was responsible under the lease for keeping the systems up. Finally, the judge found, when the city scheduled a public hearing on the condemnation, in November 2002, it sent notice to Target, but not to the landlord -- a trust representing the Aaron family of New York and others -- which didn't learn of the hearing until a month later.

Judge Shaw issued a temporary order halting the taking. Earlier this year, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the order, ruling the case should have been heard in state court. Edward M. Goldenhersh, a St. Louis lawyer for the landlord said the family was disappointed with the appeals-court ruling because the court "ducked the issue." The two sides settled afterward.

A Target spokeswoman declined to comment. A spokesman for Mayor Francis Slay didn't return telephone calls.


In a statement, Atlanta-based Home Depot said the project would bring "good paying jobs and economic development," adding that "the City of Pittsburg identified this site as an area in need of redevelopment, and the Home Depot was receptive to working with the developer who was negotiating with the city."

The Fifth Amendment issue was that eminent domain should be utilized, as it states, for 'public use'. With cities going into debt, they used the arguement that the tax revenue from private commercial development became something the public would use.

Just saw a special on this on TV tonite and people are losing their homes because their neighborhoods are labeled as deteriorating, the weakest excuse possible, but accepted nonetheless in eminent domain fights, because the houses are more than 40 years old and had weeds growing nearby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

The Fifth Amendment issue was that eminent domain should be utilized, as it states, for 'public use'. With cities going into debt, they used the arguement that the tax revenue from private commercial development became something the public would use.

Just saw a special on this on TV tonite and people are losing their homes because their neighborhoods are labeled as deteriorating, the weakest excuse possible, but accepted nonetheless in eminent domain fights, because the houses are more than 40 years old and had weeds growing nearby.

---

the beauty of the new SCOTUS decision is they dont have to pretend that things are deteriorated. they can do whatever the fuck they want, subject only to being voted out of office in the next election.

The saddest thing about the tax revenue argument is that most of these deals are done with TIF where the increased taxes are abated for 20 or 30 years as another incentive for the deal.

Agreed, CoreShot. Totally.

This ruling is revolting. It undermines the very basis of the founding of this nation. It is evil and insidious. Nothing good will come of this for citizens and small business owners.

I was thinking about this the other day on my drive to work I was thinking (don't know if this has been said but), if every one put their houses on the market for some outrageous price and just keep it there then when Joey Bag O doughnuts developer comes along and wants your land just tell em thats great its on the market if they want it. The price is set if they want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomK

Think on this twist. You own a house with an acre of land. Land is zoned for higher density - say 8 houses per acre. Developer can now force you to sell the land at a huge discount (eminent domain siezure prices are lower than going market price) because the local government will collect higher property taxes from 8 houses than your 1.
Since when is possible increased tax revenue a "public benifit" ?

---

I disagree regarding lower market price for eminent domain siezures. In my state when eminent domain is used the state must pay fair market value. I have been witness the use of eminent domain regarding a highway reconstruction. The unwilling seller received the same value for his property as the willing sellers.

Quote:

---

Just saw a special on this on TV tonite and people are losing their homes because their neighborhoods are labeled as deteriorating, the weakest excuse possible, but accepted nonetheless in eminent domain fights, because the houses are more than 40 years old and had weeds growing nearby.

---

I think your talking about a PBS show? I saw the same thing. The mayors of those towns were portrayed like evil landloads that wanted to evict tennants for a higher class applicant. What they didn't seem to grasp was that they don't own the land.

From www.volokh.com:
In his dissent in Kelo (buried on page 14), Justice Thomas may well have written my all-time-favorite line of any constitutional opinion (perhaps, in part, because it does not seem to be written to be famous):

"Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’'s interpretation of the Constitution."

As his most recent work (of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto), The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else explained, Western systems are built upon a bedrock of property rights. Without this basic system of property, and the capitalism built on it, those stuck in the third world are cut off from capital markets, cut off from investment, and cut off from doing business with anyone beyond their immediate kith and kin. They have no officially recognized property that can be offered as collateral.

A brief bio from the CATO Institute (how many economists get targeted for assassination anyway?).

The rich get richer. This AM I heard that Wal-Mart is putting a super store a few miles away from the 20 acres I own. There goes the ranch. :cussing: :fuckyou: Idaho or bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth

This ruling is revolting. It undermines the very basis of the founding of this nation. It is evil and insidious. Nothing good will come of this for citizens and small business owners.

---

agreed, however, I don't think I'm the only one that thinks Halsted and North are better served by Crate and Barrel and The Container Store than being Cabrini Green's north western butress.